Women: Nothing But White Noise?

In my American Studies class in school, we recently finish White Noise by Don DeLillo. Here is the premise of the book: set in the 70s, tells the story of Jack Gladney, a Hitler studies professor at a college, and his family. After the set up, a cloud of chemicals comes that forces the family to leave town for a little, and later move back. Jack is of course the main character, complex and interesting, but his wife Babette also receives a decent amount of development. Don't get your hopes up though, by no means is she described flatteringly. When we do learn about her, it is for short sections, that could be thought of as white noise.

I am not surprised by the lack of impressive female characters in the novel. I think that this novel merely mirrors life. The New York Times recently published an article about Gloria Steinem, a prominent and highly influential woman involved in the women's rights movement for 40 years. The article  talks about how the feminist movement relies solely on Gloria as their spokesperson, and how no one else has been able to replace her. As I said at the beginning of this paragraph: this novel merely mirrors life. In White Noise, there is not a single powerful female character. Let me describe some of the female characters in the book:
Babette: scared of death, obsessed with weight, and sleeps with another man to get what she wants.
Denise: Jack's daughter who is bossy yet extremely gullible and easily influenced. For instance, she adopts every symptom of what she hears on the radio that could be a result of exposure to the toxic cloud "'[Denise and her sister] get them only when they're broadcast" (129). In this case, "them" is whatever new symptom has been announced.
Steffie: Jack's other daughter who is like another Denise except sensitive. We do not really know very much about her but we know that her genes are not great because her mother has some issues.

Those are really the three main female characters, but combined they are still all less interesting than Jack, the main character. If novels are reflections of real life, can we expect there to be interesting, intelligent characters like Gloria Steinem when there is only one person like her? Except for Gloria Steinem, are women nothing but white noise?

Mad (Wo)Men

Mad Men, a popular tv show on AMC set in the mid 20th century about the big wig advertising men of that era, just aired the premiere of its 5th season on Sunday Night. Deciding to give into the Mad Men crave, I watched the first episode of the show today. In the first 15 minutes of the show, you see 5 different women's characters. The first one is a woman smoking at the bar, the second a booty call, the third a young girl who seems like a hopeless dreamer with the dream of getting ahead who cannot stick up for herself, the fourth a pissy red head who insists that women are good for nothing but sex, and the fifth is finally a seemingly educated woman- however, she is foreign and is immediately shut down when she begins talking.

But don't worry it's okay because they are just making fun of people who make fun of women.....

But is it really okay? Are we not taught in English class that a double negative makes what you said before you repeated yourself true? Example: "Mother, I did not not do my chores". In this case I am partly clearing your name, but what I still really mean is that I did not do my chores, I am just unwilling to admit it. SO, to say that you are making fun of people who are making fun of women really just means that you are in fact making fun of women. In the words of a vlogger on feminist frequency "It’s really the normalization of sexism through the use of irony" (video shown below). I certainly agree with what she has to offer on the topic of lampooning others who make fun of women; check it out to hear her ideas on the topic.

Do you agree? Can we apply the theory of a double negative to something like sexism in a tv show?

At The Bottom

Feminist sayings with Ryan Gosling pictures have
been flooding the internet. This is one of many. 

A popular New York Times article floating around is about the possibly longest serving flight attendant in the U.S.- an 83 year old man who has been working as a flight attendant for 63 years now. The tone of the article can easily be described as light, heartwarming, or even inspiring. When I saw only the title of the article, I assumed the subject of the article would me a woman because of occupational crowding- men or women being  grouped in a certain job because it is the right "fit" for their gender. I do not think it was presumptive of me to jump to the conclusion that the flight attendant would be a male for a reason stated in the article. The qualifications for a flight attendant used to be: "single (widows and divorcees with no children considered), 20 years of age (girls 19 1/2 may apply for future consideration). 5’2” but no more than 5’9,” weight 105 to 135 in proportion to height and have at least 20/40 vision without glasses". I suppose it goes without saying that they must we women. Oh and also they were required to retire by 32. These requirements to be a flight attendant are quite appalling. The gall of the executives of this company to put this add out there in 1966, not that long ago, is remarkable. In the next paragraph, the article mentions his personal life: "He married a fellow flight attendant... He continued to fly. She promptly quit". This should give an idea of just how regulated these things were; these rules of being single and such were played by the book.

Despite this article acknowledging the unfair treatment of women in the work force, it does not mention women's role in the field until the very bottom of the first page and spilling on a tiny bit onto the second. It makes me wonder: how far have we really come? In an article about the unfair treatment of women, why are women only a small portion of the article, and why do they come at the point when most people would stop reading?

Women DO Count

One of the cover stories on the Sunday New York Times is about Obama's campaign and his latest tactic to regain candidacy in the 2012 race. As my title suggests, the key to his winning the election is getting the women vote. A new health care law is out mandating universal insurance and requiring coverage of both treatments for illnesses, and more controversially, certain women's health care coverages. These coverages include: contraception, mammograms, and abortion. Republicans and leading republican presidential candidates are not in favor of these health care laws and plan to repeal it if they get in power. 


One of my main problems with this issue is the disconnect between the Republican party's pro-life stance and how they treat people. A friend of mine recently shared this photo with me on Facebook, about all of the help the Republicans deny different groups. As the sign poignantly remarks upon- we will take care of you to make sure that you will be born, but once you are born, we have no intentions of protecting you from going broke from expensive medical treatments which you cannot pay for, or breast cancer prevention (mammogram testing), etc. Being sick is not a choice, which is why I believe that whether or not the Catholic Church's morals allows Catholics to receive previously mentioned women's health care, they should provide it as an option for all employees and people who have their health care. It simply does not make sense to be pro-life and not let people then have a good life where they do not have to worry about whether they can receive medical attention or not because it may cost them their house for something like a few chemotherapy treatments. 


Back to where I began, women in the election. Most women would and maybe even should be appalled by the Republican party's lack of support for their well-being. Here is a statistic on how much women effect who is in power, a "survey asked in the summer which party should control Congress, 46 percent of women favored Democrats and 42 percent preferred Republican control. But in a survey released Monday ... that figure had widened considerably to a 15-point advantage for the Democrats "(Source). It has been 90 years since women gained suffrage, and their vote is finally starting to matter. But I wonder in terms of the Republicans, how can they expect to win the race when they are upsetting women, who according to the NYtimes article "were 53 percent of the national vote in 2008 " ? 

TV Tokenisim

 

This show is called Undercovers and is a network drama that aired 11 episodes on NBC at 8/7 Central. The main characters in the show are Steven and Samantha, pictured top left. They were ex CIA agents who were recruited back into the agency because they are good spies. Along with their friend Hoyt, (token white guy), they travel the world getting the bad guys and saving the day. Both have many secrets from their past which spill out throughout the season. Their friend however receives under half as much screen time as they do, and is usually in the back of the car fiddling on computers or hiding while Steven and Samantha get the job done.


Source 1: http://images.zap2it.com/images/tv-EP01264338/undercovers-5.jpg
Source 2: http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/ 3046781.jpg

A Short Post About A Short Month

"I liken having a black history month in February and concentrating study on that to milk that's just about to go sour. You can still drink it but it just doesn't taste right" said Phillip Roth in his novel The Human Stain. I most definitely believe that he is onto something- it seems forced to me to have a whole month dedicated to blacks. A few initial questions I had were how did black history month start, who created it, and will it ever end?

Although this article about the history of this month is a bit dated, it is still true. To summarize: in 1926 a man named Dr. Carter G Woodson originally created Black History week in February in the week that was the birthdays of both Frederick Douglass, a former black slave and abolitionist, and President Abraham Lincoln who signed the Emancipation Proclomation. He was appalled by the lack of information the public had about their heritage. This later turned into an entire month in 1976 simply because the public began celebrating it earlier and finishing celebrating it later. (Here is a little point of irony: blacks are given the shortest month to celebrate their history.)

Now it is 86 years later and people are still unsure of whether or not blacks are being left out of the picture. I mean that both figuratively and literally. This past week in my American Studies class we have been discussing TV Tokenism. My teacher defined the token as a supporting character added to the show as a minority. Whether or not you have heard of TV Tokenism, this phenomenon most likely sounds familiar now. Just think about the black best friend, the boss never seen without a tie and suit, or the loving nanny. Many people have been upset by the fact that blacks are still never seen as the main characters in tv shows and only ever as figures of minorities to satisfy minority activist groups and members of minority groups. These characters are very forced in my opinion. However, I would be more upset if these characters did not exist and we saw a solely white cast.

Now I am curious, is it better to have these forced characters in these shows, or should we just accept the fact that blacks do not earn the same starring roles on tv shows that whites do? And in a time of political correctness, can we expect these tokens to ever disappear along with Black History Month? Are these symbols still even needed?

Damn Movie Theater Candy

So good, but so not worth it!

I just got back from seeing a movie tonight with a couple friends. The movie was hilarious, the company was good, and yet I'm angry. Why? Because all I wanted was a box of Raisinets to accompany my "cinema experience", but I am too stingy to pay the $4    for a 3.5 oz. box of candy. I have been boycotting movie theater candy for about two years now, and with little success. Perhaps boycott is not the correct word, but I am still part of a large movement to not by the ridiculously overpriced candy. Here is the secret on how I have not caved in: I bring my own candy from home- GASP!

Some people say that sneaking in your own food is wrong. However, there are no rules of the matter from the movie theater, it is just considered morally wrong so to speak. I disagree- as a consumer in America, I am given choices, not only between brands or Raisinets v. Milk Duds, but between buying and not buying. Although the right to boycott is not in the constitution, consumers may still buy what they want from the existing options.

I chose to research why exactly the candy at a movie theater is so expensive. It turns out that this information has been out in the open for almost 10 years now since CNN did a story on it. To sum it all up, the studios who make the movies take between 70 and 80 percent of the profits from ticket sales, leaving the theater with the leftovers. The only way the theaters can survive is on sales from concession stands, which is why they hike up the prices. CNN quoted one theater owner saying "'We have movies just to get people in to buy popcorn and candy, where we make our money'".


My research made me wonder, if I and everyone else who is not buying the candy at the concession stands continue our boycott, will theaters have to begin to charge more to see movies? After all, the two movie theaters in my area have both raised their ticket prices in the last year. And if they continue to raise their prices, then how much freedom do we really have as consumers?